Another Great Way To Waste Time Online

A few months ago, I got hooked by a clever little game on the Garfield website. It's called Garfield's Scary Scavenger Hunt and in it, "you" (as Garfield) walk around a haunted house avoiding monsters and looking for donuts. It took me about forty-five minutes to solve it and I apparently got a lot of you hooked, too. At least, a great many folks wrote to ask for the walkthrough solution I'd written up. Well, I am pleased and perhaps a bit fearful to tell you that the sequel is now online: Same house, roughly the same mission, most of the same monsters…but everything's in a different place and you have to do all different things to get out alive.

It took me about a half hour but some of that was luck. At the end, as your reward, the game lets you download a Garfield's Scary Scavenger Hunt screensaver…which is anti-climactic since you can also download the same screensaver from the margins of any screen. But have fun and keep your eye out for twins of Binky the Clown and cameos by two members of the U.S. Acres cast, one of whom is now apparently an entree. It's a very cleverly designed game.

To go on the first Garfield Scary Scavenger Hunt, click here. And to get to the sequel, click here. I took notes so I could whip up a walkthrough for this one but I'm not going to write it out for a couple weeks. Don't even ask for it now. Go solve it yourself. But for God's sake, don't click on the third cabinet from the left in the kitchen.

Groping for the Truth

A scant six days before the election, a number of women have come forward to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger groped them or otherwise committed improprieties of personal etiquette. As with similar charges against Bill Clinton, we really don't know how true the charges are…and it almost doesn't matter. Those who are already politically committed to the accused give him the benefit of the doubt. Those who are already opposed to the guy insist every allegation is as good as substantiated fact. Arnold gave a non-specific apology which I suppose will enable women who were already going to vote for him to feel more comfortable with their choice, and everyone's weighing in on what, if anything, it all means.

The discussions I read today seemed to be missing a thought that occurs to me, which is that this isn't so much an issue of sex as the other great aphrodisiac, which is power. Obviously, a man who makes unwanted contact with a woman is a boor and maybe even a criminal. But when we talk about a potential elected official doing these things, the salient issue may not be Abuse of Women but Abuse of Power.

There are plenty of illegal and/or immoral things we might like to do but don't because we fear the consequences. Even a person devoid of personal ethics can be smart enough to behave because he doesn't want to be arrested or sued or slapped or even scolded. But suppose we remove the possible penalty. Suppose you could do it and there's little or no chance of you being punished. To refrain out of simple human decency in that situation would be a greater display of character.

Years ago on a show I wrote, I walked in on the make-up and hair people exchanging war stories and cautioning one another about certain Big Stars. Generally speaking — exceptions are rare — such crew members are in a position of total vulnerability. If they clash with the star…well, it's a lot easier to get another hairdresser than another star. It doesn't happen often but sometimes, the star decides to be an asshole for the same reason dogs lick their genitals: Because they can. Groping people is one offense but there are plenty of others and, nine times out of ten, the abused person has to just take it. They know that if the star points at them and says, "Either that person goes or I go," they go. That day, I heard one make-up lady tell a horrible story of sexual harassment verging on rape, committed by a Very Famous Actor who knew damn well there was nothing she could do about it.

Later that very day, I saw another Very Famous Actor fondling this lady and asking her unwanted questions about her sex life. She did her best to daub make-up on his face without getting felt and strained to divert the conversation into professional areas. But the V.F.A. knew he could get away with it so he was going to get away with it. Later, I saw him screaming at male crew members, ordering them about and obviously enjoying their subservience and the fact that they couldn't answer him back. It wasn't that this man had a problem with women. He had a problem with not being answerable; of having no concept of decency for the sake of decency.

I'm not suggesting any of this applies to Mr. Schwarzenegger. I have no idea what kind of governor he might make. (So far, the biggest gripe I have about him is that I don't think any of his supporters do, either.) I just thought I'd throw out the idea that when the issue of a politician or candidate supposedly mistreating women pops up, it may not just be a sex thing. It may be that like too many rich and famous folks, they've come to feel that they have some sort of cosmic Get Out Of Jail Free card. Hubert Humphrey once said that the moral test of a government was in how they treat the sick, the needy and the handicapped. I think the moral test of a Big Person may lie in how they treat the Little People. And in whether they behave like human beings even when it's not absolutely required of them.

Recommended Reading

Paul Krugman on the way the White House deals with those who say things they don't like.

HiYo, Cartoon Fans!

loneranger04

Given how many hours of how many cable channels are given over to rerunning old TV cartoons (about half of them, Scooby Doo), it's interesting how many good-to-great shows of the past are unavailable. One, which is almost forgotten, is the 1966 Lone Ranger cartoon series produced for CBS by Herb Klynn's Format Films. Format produced a number of shows in the sixties before being shoved aside by the Hanna-Barbera juggernaut. The Lone Ranger probably hastened their fall. It was not considered a success, a fact the industry attributed to its unique graphics. The artwork, done mainly by artists who'd worked on cartoonier cartoons, was very stylized and simple. The major sources of design inspiration were Roy Crane, who did the Captain Easy and Buz Sawyer newspaper strips, and Jesse Marsh, who drew the Tarzan comic books. Both of those men illustrated adventure tales in broad, simple terms that some found stunningly effective but others dismissed as childish. The artists at Format Films simplified the Crane/Marsh approach further for animation and also tried something else that was then largely unprecedented in TV animation: Large black areas.

As I said, the show failed. A good argument can be made that it would have failed no matter how it had been drawn. It had a bad time slot and the Lone Ranger was never particularly popular with kids of that generation. Moreover, by 1966, westerns on TV were on their way out and there was never any interest in animated cowboys, before or since. (A 1980 Lone Ranger show animated by Filmation didn't click, either.) Still, somehow, the graphics "took the fall" on the '66 show and thereafter, anyone attempting an animated adventure show went for a less cartoony style and often removed black from the palette used by the cel painters. The 1992 Batman: The Animated Series may have been the first show to reverse the trend. In light of its success, it might be time to haul the '66 Lone Ranger cartoons out of some vault.

For more info on the Lone Ranger's history in animation, check out Jackson King's overview over at Jim Hill Media. It's what got me thinking about the show again and prompted me to write this.

Mission Accomplished (Again)

I think the redesign of this site is completed. But I've been wrong before.

Note to Self

This staying up 'til all hours writing has got to stop.

Recommended Reading

You'll need Adobe Reader to read it, but you might want to read this. It's a two-page chart prepared by Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL). For those who don't have Adobe Reader, here's the concept: Page one is a list of proposed spending in the effort to rebuild Iraq. Page two is a list of cuts that are being made in America spending on itself. For instance, we're cutting $1,500,000,000 in housing for American military personnel while spending the same amount to repair "electricity transmission" in Iraq. There are even more egregious examples but basically, that's what it's all about.

Recommended Reading

John Dean discusses the laws against government officials leaking the kinds of things that it looks like someone in the White House leaked.

Interviews With Candidates

I was spectacularly unimpressed with Howard Dean last night on Mr. Leno's program. Politicians go on a show like that, well aware that they need to be glib and funny and human, and I suppose he did that part okay. But they also need to be able to get a tad serious there for a time and slip in one or two genuine points about what's wrong with our nation and how they have a real plan on how to rectify it. And I'm afraid Dr. Dean didn't make that leap. Even when he tried to get to issues, he sounded lightweight and (worse) generic. Years ago, I wrote a piece about political humor that said a presidential candidate couldn't be considered a serious contender unless political cartoonists like Paul Conrad could draw the guy. Now, the benchmark may be that you have to be able to imagine Saturday Night Live finding a cast member who can "do" him. If not, the person may be too nondescript and lacking in charisma to get elected, and that's been my view of Howard Dean, so far.

Meanwhile, Joshua Micah Marshall has conducted this interesting interview with General Wesley Clark. I don't know yet if he's the man but if he can sound this informed and interesting in front of an audience, maybe. Just maybe.

While I'm At It…

Since I'm recommending books by liberals today, I also wanted to mention the new collection of Paul Krugman essays, The Great Unraveling. If you don't want to spring for it, I can basically summarize it with the words, "Just about everything the Bush administration is doing is going to bite us all on the ass." Naturally, Mr. Krugman goes into a little more detail than that, as befits a professor of Economics at Princeton. I ordinarily have little patience with predictions that the sky is falling but I find Krugman usually has pretty sound logic behind his doom 'n' gloom forecasts and he manages to avoid most of the personal crap. He will either come to be viewed as the sagest prophet of our time or this book will be ruthlessly mocked for its needless hysteria. Either way, I'm glad I have a copy and if you want to have one, here's our Amazon link. (Full disclosure: My copy was sent to me, free and unsolicited, by someone who works for its publisher and follows this site. But I would still be recommending it even if I'd paid good money for it.)

You're Gonna Love Tomorrow

Some strips are acquired tastes. I'll admit the "clip art" look of Tom Tomorrow's strips put me off at first. And at second and at third. There was something about the rubber-stamp style that put me off and the few times I forced myself to actually read an episode of This Modern World, it didn't seem worth the effort. Which just goes to show you, or even shows to go you, you shouldn't judge a comic strip by what it looks like. I guess. Whatever, the work of Mr. "Tomorrow" (actually, Perkins) has grown on me and as this new career overview volume makes me realize, the problem wasn't him. It was me. I didn't read enough to get in sync with his cynical-but-funny way of looking at the news. I now routinely visit his weblog and I'm buying all his past collections. If you're new to his world, this volume would be a good introduction. Click here to order a copy from Amazon.

What's Up With Gary Larson?

You remember him: The guy who drew the comic panel, The Far Side. Here's what he's been doing. And here's where you can order the upcoming two-volume set, The Complete Far Side, which features every damned one of his cartoons. It's almost a hundred bucks for 1,250 pages. Someone else will have to figure out what that works out to per cow joke.

The Recall

They're saying Gray Davis can't be saved and Arnold can't be stopped. That's not how I'm voting but I don't care enough about Davis or Bustamante to get worked up over it. I cannot understand anyone's enthusiasm for Schwarzenegger, especially that of folks who have moralized in the past against so many things that he represents. Seems to me all he stands for is a G.O.P. victory, so his backers have managed to kid themselves into thinking he's even vaguely qualified. If I were an extreme Republican, I'd be pissed at him for beating Tom McClintock and if I were a moderate Republican, I'd be mad that he sandbagged Richard Riordan out of the race. Both of them have experience, an understanding of the issues and a set of core beliefs more compatible with their party.

But hey, Arnold looks like he's going to win. And that's all that matters, isn't it?

So far, my biggest disappointment about this whole election is that Larry Flynt hasn't made any trouble. I was looking forward to him giving interviews and trying to crash the debates. I don't even understand why he threw his hat in the ring if he wasn't going to unleash sex scandals and throw mud.

Ah, well. This recall will be over soon and we can all turn our attention to the next one.

Mission Not Accomplished

I was wrong. More "fixes" need to be performed on the design here. I found out it reads fine in about 90% of all browsers but does weird things in, for example, the one Marv Wolfman has. So I'll be experimenting the next day or three to find the template format that pleases the most people. I'll let you know when I either solve the problem or give up. Anyway, forgive any odd things you see turning up on this site for the next few days.